Re: About the internal and external view of Blends (Was: Bug#846002: blends-tasks must be priority:standard and not make a mess out of tasksel menu)
- To: Andreas Tille <email@example.com>
- Cc: Debian Pure Blends List <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: About the internal and external view of Blends (Was: Bug#846002: blends-tasks must be priority:standard and not make a mess out of tasksel menu)
- From: Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 18:04:18 +0000
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <m2n.s.1cajaXfirstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20170203131043.GL14512@mraw.org> <20170204111601.GC30909@an3as.eu> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <m2n.s.1cajaXemail@example.com>
Andreas Tille writes ("About the internal and external view of Blends (Was: Bug#846002: blends-tasks must be priority:standard and not make a mess out of tasksel menu)"):
> May be this is the right time to clarify the role of Blends inside
> Debian and I'd like to adjust my probably biased opinion. Do you
> consider Blends as
> A) Assemblage of low popcon packages of very specific fields
> B) Strategy to establish Debian in different workfields that
> could cover a wide range of applications
I think B is awesome.
(And anyway I think low popcon packages are great.)
> To not extend this mail to much I just want to address two points. In
> the video starting at minute 3 I'm presenting numbers how many Debian
> developers confirmed that they are DDs only for the reason that the
> Debian Med project exists. In my summary for the Debian Med sprint I
> have updated numbers that the trend continues and the Debian Med
> project attracted 1 developer per year and several of them are doing
> other things than only Debian Med work now. This means a small topic
> like medicine and live science which makes a small fraction of Debian
> usage and is honestly speaking in the end irrelevant for the overall
> importance of Debian in general was able to gather more than 1% of
> the active Debian developers.
This shows what an untapped potential we have.
> Despite this effect I know from several personal contacts from this
> field, that people stick to Ubuntu with the argument: "Ubuntu is easier
> to use." A very speaking example is: I packaged a software at request
> of one of these users for Debian, fighted throug its dependencies and
> uploaded the package to backports. The user who requested the package
> keeps on using Ubuntu (since "its easier") but was not able to install
> the package in question on Ubuntu (despite I explained how to backport
> to Ubuntu). We could do a pretty good service to this type of user to
> make Debian "easy to install". This installation topic comes up in
> every talk I have given (see  at 35:20) and since 14 years I can not
> give a satisfying answer to the audience.
This must be very frustrating.
I'm afraid I have nothing useful to offer you but I do think this is
all very unsatisfactory.